Slashdot Mirror
(Another) Cut of Blade Runner
dereferenced writes "Director Ridley Scott is set, once again, to re-edit Blade Runner for the Special Edition DVD due for release later this year. He discusses his plans for the new version briefly in an interview in Empire Magazine, excerpts of which can be read here.
It's getting so it's hard to count all the different versions of Blade Runner out there; We have the original theatrical release, the Home Video version originally released on VHS, the Director's Cut, and now the Special Edition DVD, to say nothing of the various LaserDiscs, and pre-release screenings. I can't wait for the next version where, in addition to being a replicant, we find that Deckard was actually the first female president of the United States."
I'm betting that the release is nothing but a rehash of the last laserdisc version with the director's commentary, the 4th side having tons of still photos and the outtakes.
:-)
Hmmm, and I have no pesky region coding or CSS to hamper my biewing pleasure
and because I bought a used commercial laserdisc player last year I dont have macrovision either.
What is the advantage of DVD's again? other than not getting laser-rot on the discs?
(note: they are STILL pressing new releases on laserdisc.. I have to mail order them from Japan, but hey, I had episode one in english 2 weeks after it hit VHS.
)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The only ones of those that I can even stand to watch are Blade Runner, Alien, and to a lesser extent Hannibal. Yeah - BR and Alien are outstanding, utter masterpieces. But why the hell does he have such a reputation for 'excellence' when he hasn't made a drop-dead, universally recognized classic since 1982?
Then again, maybe I'm missing something. Did anybody else absolutely love any of his other movies?
Are all gone and dead I heard. My father called it the blade runner kiss of death, and I think there were a few articles about it. Basically all the big skyscrapers with the company logo's on them (i.e. Atari) all went extinct. Just something interesting I wanted to point out.
Which one of these versions of the movie is closest to the Philip K. Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
It's been years since I read the book or watched the movie, but I remember being appalled at how butchered the storyline was, especially the much-maligned ending.
This new DVD is badly needed. There has been only one Blade Runner DVD released to date, and that's the Director's Cut, which was released back in March 1997, which is very short on features. At that time, it was worth its price tag, but with the new Special Edition DVD being in the works for the past two years is hardly a good buy for the money.
So let's stop whining about the good movies that were originally released five years ago when a new edition with way more features is released.
The local IMAX here plays 'Hollywood Classics' as they call them every weekend. seeing as the IMAX screen is almost square, and movies aren't, you get a mixed bag: shows done in 16:9 take up almost the entire width of the screen, and it's like watching a letterboxed/WS dvd on a tv, but really BIG. Movies that are more square (DVD buffs fill in the proper terminology) tend to actually take up less of the screen, especially the older and more deteriorated prints (Ghostbusters was a particular disappointment).
Points of interest:
Matrix is far and away the most popular to be shown so far. It sells out for every showing they've done (and they've had it at least 10 weekends now).
The screen (at least here in Winnipeg, Canada) is something like 5 stories high, well over 70 feet. Even if the movie frame doesn't entirely fill it, a good print plus the AMAZING audio systems they have really make for an experience (Saving Private Ryan anyone?)
The obvious choice, the Star Wars trilogy, has never been shown. I assume Lucas and his cash machine figure they can't make enough here, so why give the fans something they'd love?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
OK, so see my other reply, but...
I don't think you can nearly put the strength on "definitely not in the novel" - whether or not Deckard is a replicant is one of the big open questions in that book. Honestly, I thought it was fairly obvious Deckard was a replicant (it was hinted at quite often enough - Rachael, and then the not-included other police station was a strong hint IMHO anyway, along with Deckard's dispassionate approach, AND his only -slight- moral trepidations. It would've been much harder for me!). To me, Deckard definitely was a replicant, even from the book.
I again say that I don't see how it changes the ending. The book then becomes less about how humans deal with the unhuman and more about what IS human, and what is the 'moral superiority' that humans have over replicants?
If you want the "ambiguous and powerful" bit back, start then thinking about Deckard's place in the world around him. Why choose a replicant? Surely the replicant would find out that he is a replicant and do exactly what Deckard did, right? And the goal is to stop replicants. What if humans were *unable* to do the job Deckard did, because of exactly the same problem - because they couldn't justify killing the replicants in their mind either - it just wasn't right. So they figured that they could program a replicant who wouldn't have the same moral trepidations, because replicants don't. Unfortunately, as it turns out, they were wrong in that case as well.
Why would Deckard have difficulty choosing to save her? Because of the difficulty it presents inside himself. He doesn't know he's a replicant. Saving her, in some sense, strengthens the possibility that he's a replicant. Killing her returns him to blissful ignorance, but at her sacrifice. Note again, saving her means that he's admitting that what he's been told is wrong, and that there is no difference, morally, between replicants and humans (and then, of course, he has to start wondering just what IS human - after all, remember - they stress that is the only difference).
This really is the beauty of the original book, and it carries through to the movie as well, mostly, because the story is powerful EITHER WAY. Either decision is perfectly valid, although, as we've both proven, those who believe one answer will vehemently declare that it was obvious, and they can't see how anyone could have come to the other conclusion.
In any case, I don't think you should blame Ridley for leaning one way in this argument - I think everyone does. You obviously do. I obviously do. I'll bet Dick does as well (so, in an X-Filian sort of way, the truth may be out there).